I thought he was amazing; I’m horribly saddened by his death, but I disagree that it’s a bad thing to mention that he died of an overdose. If he’d died of cancer, would it be insensitive to mention that fact? I suspect that most cancer patients/families/advocates would say NO, because it would help to draw attention to the ongoing fight against cancer. There’d be fundraisers in his honor, etc. - and even if he’d (for example) died of lung cancer after years of smoking, only assholes would blame him; it would be about the disease. Why should this be any different?

I disagree absolutely with the War On Drugs, but I don’t think that anyone is helped - not even the memory of PSH - by tiptoeing around the fact that This. Shit. Will. Kill. You.

Yeah, maybe I wasn’t clear enough about which shit I meant; I thought that stating up front that I disagree entirely with the War On Drugs would be enough. I’m unaware of any good-news stories, ever, having to do with self-injection of heroin. (I’m not saying that everybody who does it, dies of it - but there’s no good news to be had there.)

But I gotta point out, with all possible respect, that the legalization lobby’s reaction to news of celebrity overdoses has more than a little in common with the NRA’s reaction to news of school shootings. I agree with the one cause and not the other… but the reaction is unseemly in both cases, and does The Cause no good at all.

My original comment was responding to @bucciphoto, who asked “is it necessary for every news outlet to point out how he died”. In it, I brought up the War On Drugs because I’ve always hated the infantile propaganda associated with it - “Reefer Madness”, etc. - but, at the same time, when a highly-visible, successful celebrity dies of an overdose it seems irresponsible not to mention the cause of death.
“Never let a crisis go to waste”, as they say - which might sound insensitive to PSH’s memory, but if lives can be saved I think he’d be cool with it.

and I’m not part of any lobby.

Then maybe leave the “Yes, marijuana kills… A friend of mine had a bale of it fall on him” graphic out of a conversation about a guy who died of a(n apparent) heroin overdose? That was what I was responding to in your comment; I directed my criticism at the legalization lobby to avoid making it about you personally*. I frankly don’t care what your politics are; I found your graphic unseemly in this context.

I happen to agree with you on decriminalization, by the way.

ETA: * (and because you’re not the only person I’ve seen who reacts to stories like this with defenses of pot)

It’s called condensing the points I’m responding to. All anyone has to do is click the little arrow to see your entire post. If you find that “bizarre”, then so be it.

You make me sound like an advocate for slaughter.

That’s shrill. I mentioned my support for decriminalization and programs that help addicts. You then replied to me and veered into lobbies and talk of “unseemliness”. I disagreed with you that I was being unseemly, a lobbyist or an advocate for any lobby for that matter.

If you want to shrilly distort that into me saying you’re an “advocate for slaughter”, then I really can’t help you.

I responded to your post directed at me. Maybe you just have an issue with being clear and you want to blame me for it, I dunno. If you have a dispute with someone else in this thread, then address them, not me. My only initial issue with your post is that you errantly lumped all drugs together and I corrected you. If I hurt your pride or feelings in the process, I apologize.

That was what I was responding to in your comment; I directed my criticism at the legalization lobby to avoid making it about you personally*

If you want to be more clear in the future, you should probably just respond to the person you’re responding to.

Then maybe leave the “Yes, marijuana kills… A friend of mine had a bale of it fall on him” graphic out of a conversation about a guy who died of a(n apparent) heroin overdose?

You really do seem confused. First, you say I’m like an unseemly lobby, then you say I’m not, now you’re saying I am again.

You’re responsible for me posting that graphic. You didn’t make yourself clear and in the process made it appear that you were lumping all drugs together which I think was misleading. I corrected you. If that makes me seem like an unseemly lobby to you, then so be it.

I frankly don’t care what your politics are … I happen to agree with you on decriminalization, by the way.

Frankly, you seem confused again. If you don’t care what my “politics” are, I’m not sure why you’d think I care what yours were. Despite the fact you don’t care, I do care and I’m glad that we both agree on decriminalization.

I found your graphic unseemly in this context.

I find that lumping in all drugs together as “killers” as you did was unseemly and my response was appropriate. We’ll just have to agree to disagree about that.

First, ellipses: they indicate that some extraneous words have been left out. If you use them, instead, to reverse the order of phrases and make the person being quoted seem to say something he didn’t - as you did - I think most people would call it “bizarre editing”.

Second, you said “There’s nothing unseemly about saving lives”. Looking back, I cannot see anything I said that could have prompted that; you seem to have pulled that from your own nether regions. Accordingly, I responded - after quoting the actual phrase I was responding to. And you call me shrill. How should I take it, then? With a smile?

My only initial issue with your post is that you errantly lumped all drugs together and I corrected you.

No. I did not lump them all together. Here is my original sentence:

I disagree absolutely with the War On Drugs, but I don’t think that anyone is helped - not even the memory of PSH - by tiptoeing around the fact that This. Shit. Will. Kill. You.

If I had it all to do again, I would have said “I disagree absolutely with the clumsy scare tactics of the War On Drugs”, but I stand by the point I was making: that heroin will kill you, and that mentioning it when it’s the cause of death is a Good Thing, not a bad thing. Scaring potential users away from ever trying heroin in the first place would be one good outcome (however unlikely); alerting friends and family of current users is an even better one.

You’re responsible for me posting that graphic.

Are you being serious right now? I’m hoping that’s just hyperbole.

Finally, I’m going to try to clarify, one last time, what I was trying to say in my initial response to you:
I support the right to keep and bear arms. I’m not an absolutist; I think we’re over-armed to an insane extent, but in general I believe in the Second Amendment. (I’m a much bigger fan of the First, but that’s not germane at the moment.)
HOWEVER: whenever there’s a school shooting or similar tragedy, and the NRA’s first response is to bang the pulpit about the Second Amendment, it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. It riles up their hard-core supporters, but makes the rest of us - even those of us who are more or less sympathetic - question the cause. And people who were already opposed are rightly outraged. That’s what I mean when I call it “unseemly”.

Similarly, I’m in favor of drug legalization, along the lines of Portugal or (maybe) the Netherlands. I’m on board! But whenever a high-profile death due to overdose occurs, it’s inevitable that within the first few posts there will be some sort of knee-jerk response about how pot doesn’t kill. It’s true - but it makes me throw up a little in my mouth. It’s not evil, but if the aim is to win hearts and minds to the cause I think it’s counter-productive. It’s unseemly.

So since you’re offended that I identified you with a lobby… maybe don’t act like one?